History questions not worth their own thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
They also were making progress in the military factor. The Russian Armies managed to do pretty well against the Austrians, even until late stages in the war. IIRC most of their artillery was fairly modern, and they had more of it at the outbreak of the war then the Germans.
Things were certainly not all doom and gloom for the Russians in 1914.
 
Basically I am writing an essay on the effects of reformers between the years 1825 - 2000.

I have to write about Alexander the 2nd, Witte, Stolypin, Khrushchev, Andropov and Chernenko, Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The worst thing is I only have 2000 words I know WTH! You could write a book on it! And why miss out Stalin and Lenin? Doesn't make any sense.


Anyway are you sure about that? Remember the Battle of tannenburg was devestating for the Tsar. The first world war can easily be attributed as the tinder which started the revolution.
 
Russia's main problem was that Sukhomlinov refused to modernize the army past 1880 standards, and thus severely under-produced artillery ammunition in favor of bayonets. Though despite its problems, good leadership demonstrated that the Russian Army could be highly effective, as seen from the Brusilov Offensive and the Caucasian Front.
 
I thought the shortage of Russian Ammunition had more to do with gross underestimates as to how many would be actually used in battle, and therefor the levels of stockpiling/production that a war would require?
 
I thought the shortage of Russian Ammunition had more to do with gross underestimates as to how many would be actually used in battle, and therefor the levels of stockpiling/production that a war would require?

They were, because Sukhy thought artillery was a cowardly way to fight and preferred the bayonet. He took the word "modern" to be anathema.
 
The Paris Commune? I don't really think it lasted long enough to be considered an achievement, though it seemed to be doing well before Petain shelled the crap out of it.

Petain? I thought it was Clemencau . . .
 
Considering Petain was 15 years old, he seems an unlikely candidate, as does Clemenceau who took part in the commune.
 
The Paris Commune? I don't really think it lasted long enough to be considered an achievement,

It was achievement enough for Marx to point and go "look! look! See, that's what it should look like!" Marxist philosophers for decades after tried to draw conclusions from it and from The Civil War in France, which Marx wrote to express his thoughts on the event. Its not very long, scarcely a hundred pages; I'd recommend giving it a read. Its probably even online in full text somewhere.

though it seemed to be doing well before Petain shelled the crap out of it.

Oh no, the fascistoid who put down that revolt was none other than Adolphe Thiers.
 
You know, when most people use words, they have a specific meaning behind them. You should try it.

Though I've never read a history of the Third Republic proper, I've read that its origins, and especially the interim government, could make a claim to being the first fascist state, hence why I used the term I did.
 
And I could make a claim to being the one true king of England, Mars, and Emperor of these United States. It would be roughly as accurate.
 
Though I've never read a history of the Third Republic proper, I've read that its origins, and especially the interim government, could make a claim to being the first fascist state, hence why I used the term I did.

That then makes two anachronisms in a row, as the Paris Commune wasn't a socialist achievement either. (We're now also in need of two citations, BTW.)
 
My Marxist professor stressed that the Paris Commoune was a worker state not a socialist state. Also where do the Liberal Reveloutions fill into this? Triumphs of the workers movements? They did lead to the Social Democratic Party of Germany as I understand it.
 
The 'artillerist' faction of the Russian Army was easily as anti-modernization and arguably more detrimental to the First World War performance of the army as Sukhomlinov's faction. These were the lunatics that managed to stick over a million shells in the fortress of Novogeorgievsk while Russian batteries in Galicia were running out of ammunition stocks, and then held the fortress for less than two weeks in the face of virtually no German troops.
In fact, I think theres a lot to be said about Neil Ferguson's thesis that rapid economic growth actually caused Russia to be politically unstabilized and vulnerable.
By Niall Ferguson I assume you mean Norman Stone; the thesis is older than our ages combined. :p
 
My Marxist professor stressed that the Paris Commoune was a worker state not a socialist state. Also where do the Liberal Reveloutions fill into this? Triumphs of the workers movements? They did lead to the Social Democratic Party of Germany as I understand it.

Liberal revolutions led to the German SPD? That's a bit simplistic statement. It seems to me worker emancipation and the industrial revolution were some major factors, rather than "liberal revolutions" (which for the most part completely ignored worker conditions - as did liberalism in general until the late 19th century, when this issue could no longer be avoided).
 
FWIW, the Paris Commune, whether or not an actual socialist state, certainly was an inspiration for Lenin and other Bolsheviks. Circumstances in Russia led to a system that wasn't all that similar, but they were certainly hoping to build off of the Paris Commune and make something better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom